No. That's just an attribute in the catalog that tells LR where the image file actually is - I too would not attempt to load large images into a SQLite database - other databases would handle it without any issue, but would be fairly more expensive and large to install - also storing them in the file sytem lets them available from other applications that can't access the LR database.

Can LR open a file folder and display images or work on them like for example Photoshop or DPP do? No, it can't. What happens if you move a file outside LR? It is no longer in sync, because now the stored attribute points to the wrong position.

Nor LR has any "folder" physical structure inside the database. From the LR perspective, the "folders" it displays are just a kind of collection, created on the image path attribute.

You're not saying something right. You're saying a folder in LR is a catalog. It isn't. It's what you said above - a database reference to the OS folder. That reference is in the catalog, the folder itself is not the catalog. The catalog only contains information about your images.

The issue came up when you said a folder was a catalog. It's not. An .lrcat file is a catalog (what Adobe calls their database). A folder is an OS folder (which itself is a conceptual thing, not a physical thing as well).

IIRC, all images (names & attributes) are in a single table within SQLite, all folders are in another table. The folders table then has a link to the filesystem folder, allowing it to of course work with removable media. The preview is another table - I dont think it's in the image table, but is referenced. It then links to the cache on the filesystem.

If anyone is interested, I used SQLite Manager within firefox to browse the table structure - which you can do in read only and thus preserve integrity. Take a copy if you are paranoid.

I wanted to find a quick way to hack out a list of images in a folder, and whether they were part of a stacked set of images so I could pump that list into either external HDR or Pano tools. I couldn't find anything, so I just figured out by looking at the tables and wrote a few bits of SQL to extract it.

Leaving the DB to handle things is indeed fine, if you prefer. Personally I use both. Folders is quickest when I want to get to a specific photo set. Keywords is easier to compare across multiple sets, collections if you dont have too many keywords. LR and I'm sure Aperture don't force any paradigm on you, they give you multiple options and let you do what works best for you.

Yeah no rental model for me. I wonder how much Adobe paid the NYT today to publish an editorial praising the rental model as if it were just a regular un-biased article. On and on about how the rental model is loved by all and was created out of the goodness of Adobe for the common man, blah blah blah. Not a single PEEP about any hint of backlash or any negative aspects.

The only reason Adobe and others have moved to the "software as a service" model is to smooth earnings. From the standpoint of consistent revenue and stock price consistency, it makes sense. At least Lightroom has a nice analog in Capture One.

I think it's a little more than that. It provides perpetual upgrades (which should lower your support costs), and it also means everyone upgrades ie you dont have the option to skip really. Not only did it smooth their revenue but it also makes it more predictable as people dont chose to skip a version or two....

And I think that is part of the issue for me. There are not really compelling features in CC vs CS6 for a photographer to use. Lightroom continues to offer photographers more, Photoshop by it's userbase may only offer some improvements. Certainly the whole continual upgrade really hasnt shown amazing benefit as the time it takes Adobe to develop their cool features negates that.

It's the same as the movie rental model or all you can eat restaurant. Pay one price and consume. The perpetual model lets me go "no thanks, not enough".

In terms of the pricing - as mentioned by others, if you had bought LR and you were sensible enough to buy an old version of PS and an upgrade (mine cost about £200 all-in), then the £10/month is more expensive. Massively? no.

A ripoff? Well only in so far as you cant do CC by itself on subscription and as I mentioned, there isn't the same impetus to offer photographers compelling upgrades, especially once you are locked in, and the number of stand-alone CS6 licenses dwindles....

if you've not got either of them, then it's a sensible proposition if you dont mind the "lock-in" of paying for features that do nothing for you....

One person's bloat is another's treasure. I like and use the Book feature, and I hope they not only keep it in (a certainty) but enhance it.

Fair enough. Well even though it's running and utilizing resources, at least I can disable the pallet so I don't have to see it

It's taking up memory with the code, and perhaps some resource when it initializes, but it doesn't run per se, until you switch to it. Disable it from the pallet and it's consumption is quite small (couple of hundred MB I would guess)

Would I like more DR? Sure. Would I like sharper lenses? Sure. Across the frame? Yes please. I care about corners as much as the centre as my subject isn't always there. Would I want Canon to invest heavily in this and less in other areas? Would I want DR and Canon to go under in 5 years?

The camera makers haven't figured out where the bottom of the market is for them and therefore what their financial position is going to be next year, let alone 5 years, which is probably how long a return on investment would be for a new sensor fab. Finance people tend to control companies more in a declining market, and Japanese tech companies are more cautious. Even Sony, but it is clearly deriving a lot of money from sensors not just in the photo industry. I would also guess they never had a 500nm fab...

Nikon would not be where they are without Sony tech. Nor would Pentax who I believe use them. That to me suggests the cost for Nikon to design and deliver a new sensor with a new fab was too much for them. And Nikon has less headroom financially than Canon.

Where am I going with this?

Canon talk most to Pro photographers. I reason that the average Pro would like to edit pictures quicker, but as long as they can produce something which sells, then DR isn't burning for them. As in sufficient for them to jump ship. That's for landscapes through to wedding photographers. And that's why I asked you about the average user noticing Jon. Not to catch you out, I also agree with you. It's funny, I would guess more Pro's jumped ship from Canon during the 1D/1Ds MK III AF debacle than over DR. And I'm not sure that's going to change significantly more with the new release.

Canon aren't about to make the change as they dont perceive it's important enough vs the risk of investing the cost. And I would guess they aren't seeing enough churn. Maybe the 5Ds / MK IV / 1x2 will change that. I just dont think it's (DR gap) is compelling enough.

As you stated, and I agree, a decent number of scenes dont need more than >12 stops. As an aside, yup, agree about filters, but most end-users wouldnt notice.

So it comes back to what you want a camera to do for you, what are you doing with the images you produce, and is that aligned enough to the other consumers of Canon gear (Pro & Am). If you sell, then DR is broadly only an efficiency thing.

You're one of the few people who explain why and what you want it for, which I respect. I'm just not sure this is the place for you to influence Canon more, which is ultimately what more people have to do. If it becomes the #1 thing for everyone, and that gets back to Canon, well they might change (if the finance is right, and they fear losing more to Sonikon).

If it's not, then that's not a reason for you and I not to want it, and request it, but it doesn't become the be-all....

Yeah, that's making some waves on astro forums. It's got significantly more Hydrogen alpha sensitivity than any other DSLR on the market...significantly more than even the 60Da. The long exposure modes are nice as well.

The price seems out of touch, unless it can also double as a landscape camera, though. An extremely good mono CCD camera with filter wheel and filters is only a couple hundred bucks more.

Can't you just add a filter to block out those wavelengths which it's allowing? I thought it was the same sensor, different filter in front? You just want to block some of those wavelengths for normal landscape, and allow them for astro?

For me the next breakthrough will be a 100 Megapixel camera (or 200, anywhere up to 500 is good).

DR is great, but not a game changer for me (it would be for those who think it is, but for me it's as good as 100+MP is for them).

Bigger sensors are an inevitability. The EOS mount is even big enough for a 50mm sensor as-is, if you remove the mirror.All Canon has to do is make the sensors, and be able to sell a pro-mirrorless body.

If they make a new mount and forget about backward compatibility, I hope the sensor is at least 4x3" or at the very least IMAX (70.41x52.63mm).I'm sick of seeing these puny 55-60mm sensors that provide barely any increase in surface area being called "Medium Format".

Umm, a 60mm wide, 45mm tall medium format sensor...

sorry, I was mixing formats and actually talking about the 44 by 33 millimeter sensors that you mentioned.

At wost Full Frame is 2.58x bigger than the Canon APS-C sensor, and 44×33 is at best 1.7x bigger than Full Frame.I call that incremental.

Ok, I can understand that a little better. I still think gathering 170% more light is meaningful, but it certainly isn't as big as gathering several hundred percent more light with something more like 6x4.5cm size.

Even with a 44x33mm sensor, though, the optics are going to become significantly more expensive if you want corner to corner performance. I think that is where the major value in 35mm format is...you can get excellent optics at relatively reasonable prices. The larger the sensor gets, finding excellent optics at even relatively reasonable prices, let alone affordable prices, becomes exponentially more difficult.

If you have the funds for medium format, I say go for it. There are some excellent and "relatively affordable" options out there right now. It wouldn't be any different than Canon doing it, since Canon would need a new mount anyway.

For sure 35 millimeter is never going to go away (whereas APS-C might), but in the landscape and portrait range, large format lenses would not be overly expensive. The cheap ones would probably start at around $1000, but if Canon thinks people are willing to pay $3000 for a nice landscape lens, I don't think the idea is unreasonable.I just think it makes sense to make a new mount as large as possible, because chances are they're never going to do anything like that ever again. It would be the absolute best of its type that there ever will be, so this isn't the kind of system that comes and goes, the idea is they would be making something that would be built upon for potentially many generations.The attractiveness of the system is undeniable, the practicality of making it happen (affordably) is the question.

Surely until they improve materials, the bigger the sensors, the bigger the lenses? APS-C and 4/3 will exist because not everyone wants to carry around that much kit. Bigger lenses are more expensive - all other things being equal.

Mirrorless produces a smaller body, but not necessarily a smaller set of lenses.

Until they come up with "lighter" materials for the optics & and lens itself, or massive improvements in the long range zooms (the xx-xxx type), then I figure I'll still be carrying 4 or 5 lenses with a couple of bodies and a tripod, or for wildlife less lenses but even heavier. And for me, that weight in addition to the cost is probably the deal breaker.

Ironically, Michael Richman over at LuLu has been downsizing for years - lighter is better, which based on him not being a young man makes sense. And then he takes the 645Z and does a bit of a u-turn. I think Pentax has got it pretty good in terms of pricing and specs. 3 years ago, at that price, I would have been tempted. I still am. Just wrestling with the notion of heavier and therefore less. Which may be no bad thing...

Maybe I am indeed getting confused. The Dynamic Range of a scene is surely the difference between the lightest and darkest point. The DR of a sensor would then be it's ability to capture the scene as close to the live scene as possible. Noise in the camera's various systems as you describe limit the sensors' ability to capture it completely. Remove those limitations, and I may sometimes end up with more DR than I desire (I have to reduce post-capture).

And that's what your maths is demonstrating, how you can improve the tonal ranges you can record through the ability to capture more photons, or have less noise. All good, thank you for taking the effort.

But if I don't need 16 stops, let alone 20, and my sensor can capture say 15 - and thus the tonal range required, then I'm not sure I appreciate why I need the other 5?

Well, now your getting into personal need. I honestly cannot speak to that.

In a scene, dynamic range is the range of tone from brightest to darkest. In hardware, dynamic range is the range of tone from the brightest that can be captured before clipping, to the amount of read noise in an image entirely devoid of light. In a photo, dynamic range is really not a thing...I think it's better to call it contrast ratio or tonality or something like that, since an actual image has a signal to noise ratio. If you don't utilize all of the dynamic range your camera has to offer, you can still have a good S/N.

As for not needing DR...well, if you don't need it, it's really pretty much as simple as attenuating your contrast curve more. That's all it really takes to discard parts of a signal you do not need or did not use.

Personal need - lol. It's all about personal need. Does the tech do enough to allow you to portray the scene how you want to. But you and I hope most others know this

Thanks for taking the time to explain further. I'm with you in the most, and perhaps using DR for the scene and S/N for the sensor might be indeed simpler, but without labouring the point. If portraying a scene, a landscape from your earlier example, I dont necessarily need 16 stops let along 20. That was my point. It's good to have a clean image ie S/N ratio, but just because a scene has 24 stops of range, doesn't mean I as a photographer require a sensor capable of capturing it. And that's what I was trying to say (albeit not as elonquent or succinctly as I should), technology advancement has to have a point. Wasn't the same said about hi-fi devices in the 80s which strived for the lowest THD and ended up being "too clinical / without soul" to some people?

Appreciate that every time I use a grad I'm acknowledging the scene is greater than the sensor. I guess I'm trying to figure out how much more the sensor needs to have. Is it 15 stops (based on using a 3 stop grad on a 12 stop sensor?).

I'd also love to know how much the average person would look at a picture and dismiss it because it only had 12 stops of DR. Clearly a side by side, you'd hope they notice....

Focusing the viewer. The eye is naturally drawn to bright elements in a picture, so too much DR is not perhaps always a good thing. Having elements of the picture without too much detail means the eye ignores it and focuses on where you want them to....

In most images we view, we only see 5-10 stops (depending on medium). If you have 20 in the bag, you can creatively choose which to display. Start with more to end with less, since the opposite isn't possible.

Ah, if I can chose that at the time of taking the picture then great. And I get having the added flexibility. But doing that post-processing? Hmmm...

Surely the same is for video (as is more is not always better). And with video then reducing it post-processing is more complex ?

And finally, how many screens and printers have a DR of 20 stops?

I think you are just misunderstanding what DR is, and why it's valuable. It's not about printing an image with 20 stops. It's about having the cleanest, most accurate data possible out of the camera, so that you do no have limitations when you do process the image.

Noise is just useless information. It reduces how much of the numeric space we are representing the original analog signal in that we can use. That's it. More electronic noise == less usable data.

Remember, DR is just a way of describing a ratio. FWC/RN. That's all we are talking about here. Maximum Allowed Signal over Noise. DR is different than SNR, and also different than contrast ratio. You can achieve whatever contrast ratio you want even if you have 20 stops of DR (or more)...that's all in the processing (and truly, you don't want that much DR in an image? All you need is a tight contrast curve, and your done. ). More DR simply means that you start out with better data when you begin processing...that's all.

Maybe I am indeed getting confused. The Dynamic Range of a scene is surely the difference between the lightest and darkest point. The DR of a sensor would then be it's ability to capture the scene as close to the live scene as possible. Noise in the camera's various systems as you describe limit the sensors' ability to capture it completely. Remove those limitations, and I may sometimes end up with more DR than I desire (I have to reduce post-capture).

And that's what your maths is demonstrating, how you can improve the tonal ranges you can record through the ability to capture more photons, or have less noise. All good, thank you for taking the effort.

But if I don't need 16 stops, let alone 20, and my sensor can capture say 15 - and thus the tonal range required, then I'm not sure I appreciate why I need the other 5?

Focusing the viewer. The eye is naturally drawn to bright elements in a picture, so too much DR is not perhaps always a good thing. Having elements of the picture without too much detail means the eye ignores it and focuses on where you want them to....

In most images we view, we only see 5-10 stops (depending on medium). If you have 20 in the bag, you can creatively choose which to display. Start with more to end with less, since the opposite isn't possible.

Ah, if I can chose that at the time of taking the picture then great. And I get having the added flexibility. But doing that post-processing? Hmmm...

Surely the same is for video (as is more is not always better). And with video then reducing it post-processing is more complex ?

I'm not talking about my own personal subjective perceptions of how I "feel" when I see a Canon image or a Nikon image. Again, this is simple, objective, mathematical stuff here. Cold, hard facts...not feelings.

Do you see the disconnect there? At this point in time we know nothing, we are just speculating on what Canon reps have said and to tell the truth what Mike Burnhill of Canon CPS in the UK said, "but there's a much lower noise floor, so therefore more ability to pull out detail in the shadows and highlights", really is unequivocal.

All I know is I don't know and nobody here does either. I also know and have seen the video of the Canon rep saying the shadow detail is better. How they did it, if they have, will be interesting in a purely academic way, but nobody here has a clue if they have or how.

Proclaiming your post is "Cold, hard facts...not feelings." does not make it so. I would be doing my 3,000+ posts and the forum in general a disservice if I did not point that out, especially when we have follow up posters saying "He's not stating it as fact"!

No he's basing it on their current tech ie 7D II and what it needs to do to increase the DR. He doesn't have access to a 5Ds and is using the information available....

But you cannot use previous posts to discredit the current argument, it has to be based on the current one. On that basis, I believe the comments about measuring DR are correct. I've not verified his figures on the MK II, but there's been no announcement to suggest any step-change in DR for that sensor.

So it comes back down to whether Canon has reduced read-noise. Which everyone hopes they have done....

It's a standard National Park I believe, ie even when the "gates close", you can get in. Put it this way, the distance from the gate to the visitors centre is only a short distance, maybe 500m or less IIRC. I also think the visitors centre is also a hotel. Either way, I was taking shots pre-dawn and post sunset in Feb and never had any problems so you should be good.

I think therefore, that it's not covered by the All Parks Pass that you can buy, but I dont recall it being too expensive either.... I chose to stay across the road (I can find the name if you're interested)...

What I've not married up Jon, and maybe you have, is I use light to focus the viewer in pictures. If there's too much range in the shot, is there not a chance that it impacts the effectiveness of the shot? Some increase in DR, good. Too much ie 20 stops? Not so sure.

I'm not sure what your getting at... I don't see how more dynamic range could ever be a problem. Certainly not for focusing. Hell, if you had 20 stops, and an in-camera stretching function, you could lift the shadows by orders of magnitude to check focus there as well. Or pull down ultra bright highlights and check focus there. How could that possibly be bad?

Focusing the viewer. The eye is naturally drawn to bright elements in a picture, so too much DR is not perhaps always a good thing. Having elements of the picture without too much detail means the eye ignores it and focuses on where you want them to....